SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Assessing the reliability and validity of the sport motivation scale-II using the COSMIN methodology-a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Sport Motivation Scale-II (SMS-II) has been widely employed to assess motivational orientations in athletic populations; however, its measurement properties remain subject to debate. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of SMS-II and synthesize the quality of evidence using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was conducted up to 20 March 2026 to identify studies reporting psychometric evaluations of SMS-II. Measurement properties were appraised against the COSMIN quality criteria, while methodological rigor was assessed using the COSMIN risk-of-bias checklist. Results: Moderate-quality evidence supported the sufficiency of content validity (relevance and comprehensibility) and six-factor structural validity (supported by 76.5% of included studies). Furthermore, high-quality evidence from a subset of studies (two studies) supported sufficient five-factor structural validity. High-quality evidence also supported sufficient cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, internal consistency for the six-factor structure (Identified subscale) and five-factor structure (Integrated and Intrinsic subscales), test-retest reliability (except for the Identified subscale), and hypothesis testing for construct validity. Conversely, two-, three-, and four-factor structural validity solutions, as well as internal consistency for the Identified, External, and Amotivated subscales within the five-factor structure, were rated as insufficient. The remaining measurement properties demonstrated inconsistent findings despite high-quality evidence. Discussion: While specific structural models (two-, three-, and four-factor) and the internal consistency of certain subscales within the five-factor model received insufficient ratings, the core measurement property of the SMS-II as a whole was classified as inconsistent. These findings indicate that the SMS-II can be cautiously utilized, although additional high-quality research is required to establish the sufficiency of its currently inconsistent measurement properties. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251163217, CRD420251163217.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.